A Research Study Investigating the Use of Assistive Technology with Students in British Columbia - Kerry Randle (2005)

Introduction

Students with Autism Spectrum Disorders present very unique challenges to those supporting them in the school system. There is no shortage of research and information on the profiles of ASD students or on how they may be supported in accessing their educational programs. However, despite the fact that many ASD students are using assistive technology on a regular or even daily basis, there is little solid research in this area. School based teams are often choosing a technology solution with little assurance of whether or not it will provide the communication or motor planning support their students require. There are currently over 430 students with Autism Spectrum disorders receiving service from SET-BC and more are added to this caseload each year. It is important that we understand what types of technologies are being successfully used by these students, how they are being implemented, and what factors or conditions support successful implementation.To gather information on the types of technology being requested, how that technology was being implemented, and the strategies for successful implementation of the technology, SET-BC undertook a study project which involved circulating a provincial survey-type questionnaire to school based teams currently receiving SET-BC support for their students with ASD. Follow up phone interviews were also conducted with a small sample of those teams. This report will describe the results of that study project, including the methodology used for conducting the survey and phone interviews, the results of both, and an analysis of the findings. Ultimately, the analysis of the study project has led to the creation of several online resources aimed at providing new and continuing school based teams with information and strategies for selecting and implementing assistive technology with their students.

Current Research on the Use of Assistive Technology with Students with ASD

Despite the fact that many students with ASD regularly or even daily use assistive technology to support oral or written communication, there is limited information on what types of technology are being used and how these technologies are successfully implemented. A diagnosis of autism is typically made when a student has characteristics in three main areas:

• A qualitative impairment in social interaction
• A qualitative impairment in communication
• Restricted, repetitive, and stereotyped patterns of behaviour, interests and activities

Communication interventions with students with ASD have been used for three decades. Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC) systems range from systems using tangible or picture symbols, manual signs, simple voice output devices, orthographic (writing) supports, and high-tech, computer based voice output devices. One of the few researchers who has looked at the use of AAC systems with students with ASD is Pat Mirenda from the University of British Columbia. She has published two recent reviews which examined research in this area and concluded that very little has been done. Consequently, there is little to guide teams considering or using AAC with these students. Most of the research involves AAC support of other special needs students, like non-verbal students with Cerebral Palsy, or other physical injuries. The danger is assuming we can group all these students together when considering how best to implement AAC solutions. Students with ASD have very unique communication challenges which must be considered when implementing communication systems. For a more detailed review of the current literature on AAC and students with ASD, click here. Students with autism spectrum disorders also typically have fine motor and motor planning challenges making written communication difficult. Some of the most successful technology interventions involve higher functioning students and writing tools. And yet, there is even less written on the use of writing hardware and software with these students than on the use of AAC. Despite the lack of literature and research in this area, the results of the survey and follow-up phone interviews clearly demonstrated that teams are very successfully using technology for communication and writing supports with students along the entire range of the disorder.

The study project method

• survey

Early in 2004, after considerable research into survey and questionnaire research methods (see bibiography for references used), a four page, multiple-choice and short response survey was created. The survey was designed to gather information on the school based team, the student, the technology, and how the technology was used. The survey was organized in four sections:

Table A

The actual survey instrument can be viewed by clicking here.

Once the survey was created, it was piloted with three school based teams who were working with students with ASD who had received technology support at the district level (not from SET-BC). Based on the teams' comments the wording of several questions was amended for clarity.

The next step involved selection of school based teams who would receive the survey. A search of the SET-BC provincial database was conducted for all students who were funded under the Ministry of Education disability category "G" (autism). A list of possible survey recipients was generated. A second search of the database for students funded under category "D" (physical handicapped) with a concurrent diagnosis of autism was conducted and those possible survey recipients were added to the first list. There were 506 students on the list of possible survey recipients.

Every student on the list was given a number and the students were then randomly selected using a table of ten thousand random numbers (Appendix A.1 Gay & Airasian, 2003). A random sampling of 50% of the original number was created, generating a final sample of 254 students. These students were placed in a new list and given new numbers for identification.

A cover letter explaining the purpose of the project, contact information, and instructions on how to complete the survey was written. The letter, survey, and a self-addressed, stamped envelope was mailed to the school based team contact associated with the student (as identified on the SET-BC provincial database). A request to have the survey returned within three weeks was made in the covering letter.

When surveys were returned, each was stamped with the date returned and the student checked off on the sample list. For any surveys not returned at that point, the school based team was contacted by phone to ensure they had received the survey and answer any questions they may have had. This follow up phone call resulted in more surveys being returned after the deadline.

The surveys were reviewed once to remove any that were incorrectly completed. Several surveys were incorrectly completed (e.g. team checked several boxes when asked to check one or team completed survey for a different student) and several were incomplete (e.g. team did not complete the back of the survey). These surveys were voided and removed from the data group.

The lengthy process of data collection then began. Each survey was entered into a database, with answers to each question recorded. Each question was then sorted to group responses. The sorting was done for individual questions and then again for several questions together to determine if there was a pattern or connection (e.g. type of technology was cross sorted with successful implementation rating). The results were tabulated and graphed.

• phone interviews

The surveys were reviewed again to specifically select those that had identified the implementation of the technology as being "extensively successful" (survey question #20). These surveys were randomly sampled again and a list of 15 possible candidates for follow up phone interviews was generated. The school based contacts for those students were contacted and asked if they would participate in a 20 - 30 minute phone interview. Eight contacts agreed to be interviewed and a convenient time for the teleconference was established.

These qualitative interviews took approximately 20 minutes and were conducted around probative questions designed to gain further information on the following:

• a more detailed description of the student
  • I would like to confirm that the information we have on our database is correct (confirmed technology and disability)
  • Can you describe your student to me?
• use of technology
  • Can you tell me how he/she uses his/her technology?
• assessment for technology
  • What kind of assessment did you and your team do to determine which technology to implement with him/her?
• challenges to implementation
  • What have been the major challenges in implementing the technology?
• implementation successes
  • What have been some of the successes you have seen?
• resons for success
  • Why do you think the technology has been so successful in supporting your student's educational program?
• strategies for other teams
  • If you could give advice to other teams considering implementing technology with a student with autism spectrum disorders, what would that advice be?
• wrap up question
  • Anything else you would like to tell me about?

A transcript of one of the phone interviews can be viewed by clicking here.

The main questions provided the framework for each interview, but each interviewee's responses elicited more probative questions, the intent being to gain additional information or to gain clarity on a specific response. The phone interviews were not audiotaped - notes were typed into an interview template during the conversation and additional notes were added after the interview concluded. The interview notes were loosely coded and the responses were collected and analyzed for patterns and trends. Identified patterns and general observations were compiled in a list.

• videotape interviews

From those surveys where the team had identified the implementation of technology as being "extensively successful" three teams were non-randomly chosen for videotape interviews. The teams were chosen based on geographic location (located within the SET-BC Region 4 area), team availability (had time in their schedule) and, finally, on the willingness of teams and the students' parents to be interviewed. Permission to be videotaped was secured from all parties involved and teams were prepared ahead of time by sending them a list of possible issues they might wish to address during the interview. The issues or questions were very similar to those for the phone interviews.

On the day of videotaping, the students were videotaped first using their technology in different situations and for different purposes. The team was then videotaped responding to the interview questions and talking, in general, about implementation of the technology in their students' educational programs. The videotapes were edited and titles and voice-overs added as needed.

The study results

• survey

Of the 254 surveys that were sent out to school based teams, 126 were returned for a return rate of 49.6%. Once these were reviewed, 15 surveys were voided due to errors in completion, leaving a total of 113 valid returned surveys or 44.5%. These 113 surveys were used in the following data analysis.

There was an overwhelming number of males represented in the data - 91.2% of the surveys were completed for males students. While the ratio of males with ASD to females is known to be, on average, 3-4 to 1, it was expected that the majority of the students represented would be males.

The age range of the students as can be seen in Chart A was between 8 and over 18 years of age, with no students age 5, 6, or 7 being represented in the survey results. The majority of the students were between 11 and 15 years of age.

Chart A

Age Range of Students Represented in Survey

The same range, expectedly, was seen in grade of students represented in the survey. As can be seen in Chart B, the majority of students were registered in Grades 4 to 10.

Chart B

Grade Range of Students Represented in Survey

The same range, expectedly, was seen in grade of students represented in the survey. As can be seen in Chart B, the majority of students were registered in Grades 4 to 10. Results of the survey indicated that these students were in an approximate 60/40 split between Modified and Adapted programs with 72 students being in Modifed and 32 being in Adapted programs. Two students were reported as being "unspecified" as to type of program. With the higher percentage of students being in Modified programs, it wasn't surprising that the majority of the students represented by the survey were reported as having an "autism" diagnosis. Chart C shows the reported diagnoses for all students represented.

Chart C

Diagnoses of Students Represented in Survey

As the chart indicates, autism (66 students) was by far the most reported diagnosis, with Aspberger's syndrome (28 students) being the second largest number represented in the survey. These results were reflected in the types of technologies implemented by the teams. When compared, students with an autism diagnosis typically were utilizing communication and concept development software whereas students with an Aspberger's diagnosis utilized technology for written output.

When the types of technology were analyzed, the vast majority of technology being used by the school based teams had been obtained from SET-BC. A few students were using SET-BC software on a district computer. These results are to be expected - the survey sample was generated from the SET-BC provincial database. There is undoubtedly many students with ASD utilizing assistive technology provided by the school districts, but these students were not accessible through this survey. Chart D shows the types of SET-BC loaned technology being used by the students represented in the survey.

Chart D

SET-BC Technology Used by Students Represented in Survey

As can be seen on the chart, a large number of students (66 students) represented on the survey use some type of desktop computer, with another 33 using laptops. That means that 99/113 students or 87.6% of the students represented use computer technology. Some students (13 students) use dedicated word processors as well. A surprisingly few number of the students (only 7 students) utilize AAC devices. As expected, given the large numbers of computers being used, a variety of software programs are being used for concept development (Intellitalk, Math Pad, Clicker 4) and written output (Co:Writer, Write:OutLoud, Clicker 4). One surprise was the low number of Boardmaker programs being used. Considering that most teams use Boardmaker to create visual supports, this may be due to the teams assuming the survey was asking what technology the 'student' utilized themselves and may not have reported team use of that particular technology.

When asked what the student used the technology for in his or her educational program, a wide variety of uses were identified. Chart E summarizes this information.

Chart E

Use of Technology by Students Represented in Survey

Some of the reported uses were not surprising - a large number of students (88 students) used the technology for some sort of written output. About the same number used the technology for keyboarding (60) as for academic concept development (62). A small number (7 students) reported that the technology was not used at all. Some surprising results were the high number of teams that used the technology specifically for motivational purposes (79 students), and the number that used it for communication (48 students). This latter figure is surprising given the few number of AAC devices that were reported being used. This would seem to indicate that the teams are viewing communication from a wider perspective including, one can speculate, written communication and the communication skills that are developed using concept development software and as a result of using the technology with peers. Some students (28 students) are also using the technology to develop social skills but this is lower than one might expect.

One of the questions that teams are often asked when reviewing the implementation of technology is how much that technology is used during a typical school day. When asked this question on the survey, the teams reported a range of use from none to 4-5 hours per day. These results can be seen here in Chart F.

Chart F

Number of Hours in Typical School Day Technology Used

The majority of students in the survey are using their technology between 0 and 2 hours per day with most teams (representing 50 students) reporting 1 - 2 hours use per day. While somewhat discouraging, this is probably quite realistic given some of the implementation challenges reported by the teams in another area of the survey.

Despite only using the technology an average of 1-2 hours per day, teams rated the technology as at least 'somewhat' successful in supporting their students' learning goals. The majority of teams (67), in fact, reported the technology as being effectively and extensively successful in supporting these goals. Chart G summarizes their response to this survey question.

Chart G

Degree to Which Teams Feel Technology is Successfully Supporting Learning Goals

The final question on the survey asked teams to rate their sense of the impact the technology has had on their student's educational program. The overwhelming majority rated the impact as positive (60 teams) or significantly positive (40) indicating that, in general, technology implementation is going very well for these students. Chart H summarizes this finding.

Chart H

Team Sense of Impact of Technology on Student's Educational Program

The survey also generated a great deal of data on the school based teams themselves. The surveys indicated a very complicated picture of the nature of school based teams supporting students with ASD. From the survey responses, there was a significant range in team composition from very large teams with over eight regular members to very small, two member teams. The team member roles and responsibilities were different depending on the composition of the team. The data has been summarized in Table B.

Table B

School Based Team Composition and Roles

TA (Teaching Assistant) LAT (Learning Assistant Teacher) CT (Classroom Teacher) SLP (Speech-Language Pathologist)
OTPT (Occupational/Physiotherapist) SBT (School based team) Other (other team members) unspec (unspecified)

The teams were asked how much time was scheduled for the various components of a successful technology implementation plan. The survey respondents were give a choice of time ranges and they were asked to comment only on time that was formally built into their schedule, not how time they actually spent on each task. Their responses are summarized in Table C.

Table C

Time Formally Allocated for Implementation Tasks

When asked to rate how much typical challenges to technology implementation impacted their own implementation, the teams reported significant impact across the range and for every challenge choice. This indicates that most teams encounter barriers, some more than others. In general the challenges were rated as occuring occasionally, as ongoing and as significantly. Table D summarizes the survey responses.

Table D

Challenges to Technology Implementation

One of the questions on the survey asked teams to indicate the sources of training for the technology they were implementing with their students. They were able to select from a list of commonly available training sources. The results indicate that the majority of teams (84) received training from SET-BC but they also received training from other sources including the second largest source, self-taught with print materials. The results are summarized in Chart I.

Chart I

Sources of Technology Training

Some of the most interesting data came from the question regarding the team's perception of their technical ability, specifically with regard to the team member most responsible for implementing the technology. Working with teams, it appears they often undervalue their technical ability, but from these results a surprising number (83 teams) placed themselves at an intermediate or higher level of technical ability. Chart J summarizes their responses.

Chart J

Team Perception of Technical Ability of Member Primarily Responsible for Implementation

Analysis of the surveys was very time consuming! The information was complex and proved challenging to correlate. However, some very interesting trends emerged…

School Based Teams

• The composition of school based teams varies greatly across the province but almost all teams have at least one Learning Services Teacher and a Special Ed Assistant.

• The Special Ed Assistant is almost always the person responsible for preparing support materials and working directly with the student with technology.

• Almost 100% of the teams reported 0 – 1 hours per week spent on planning, directing, preparing materials for, or assessing the implementation of the technology. Time spent working directly with the student varied widely.

• Almost all school based teams received training from SET-BC. Many also attended workshops and a surprising number were self-taught.

• Most teams have been supporting their student for less than 2 years.

• Most teams rated themselves at an intermediate level of technical ability.

Student

• The vast majority (91%) of the students surveyed were male. They ranged in age, but were primarily between 10 and 17 years of age.

• The majority (72%) of the students’ programs were modified.

• The diagnosis of the students varied significantly. Most (58%) were identified as simply “autistic”. Twenty-eight percent were identified as “higher functioning” or “Aspberger’s Syndrome”.

• The vast majority of the students were identified as having significantly lower than peers’ quality and quantity of written expression and oral communication. Only a handful had better than peers’ skills in these areas.

Technology

• Of the 113 surveys analyzed, only 7 indicated the use of AAC or dedicated communication technologies. The rest of the students used various technologies, most involving a computer or laptop and writing or communication software.

• The technology is being used to meet a wide variety of goals, including keyboarding practice, increase written output, development of academic concepts, development of life skills, communication, development of social skills, support of positive behaviour and for motivation. For all students, technology supported a number of goals.

• In general, the technology is being used for less than 2 hours in a typical school day. Seventy-one percent use it between 0 and 2 hours per day. Seven percent do not use it at all and only 4 percent use it 4 to five hours per day.

• Almost all teams identified challenges to implementation of the technology indicating challenges such as finding time for planning and making support materials and resolving technical problems as being an “ongoing” or “significant” problem.

• Teams rated the degree to which they felt technology has been used successfully to support the students’ goals across the range, but 59% rated its implementation as “effectively” or “extensively” successful.

• Teams also rated their overall sense of the impact technology has made on their students’ educational program with 88% of the teams reporting a “positive” or “significantly positive” impact.

In general, teams are using a variety of technologies, mostly computer-based, with students having a range of communication and writing needs. Even though the teams report significant challenges, particularly with finding time for implementation, the technology is viewed as successfully supporting their goals for the students’ educational programs.

• phone interviews

The phone interview transcripts were loosely coded according to the following categories:

• student use of technology
• successful implementation factors
• impact of technology on student educational program

Comments were placed in these categories to identify patterns and trends in responses. This analysis produced the following observations:

• The successful implementation of technology with these students appears to depend on several factors:

o Matching the technology to the student’s need carefully
o Having a positive attitude towards technology – often reinforced by the school’s administration
o Having a technically able or enthusiastic Special Education Assistant (they worked primarily with the student and their comfort and interest in the technology was critical)
o Having reliable and timely access to technical support when the technology needed repair.
o Introducing the technology slowly into the student’s program so as to not overwhelm him or her.
o Persevering through the problems – look at implementation as a long term goal and keep this goal in mind when planning and assessing its use

• Teams reported significant or overwhelmingly positive impact from the technology particularly with higher functioning students using writing tools.

• Teams reported “spin off” benefits not originally anticipated, including development of oral language, improvement in social relations with peers, increased on task behaviour and motivation, and reduction in frustration levels.

• videotape interviews

Three teams in the Kootenay region of British Columbia were selected to be videotaped discussing the use of technology with their students. In addition, scenes of the students interacting with the technology were also obtained. The teams had been asked during preparation for the interview to comment on what type of technology they were implementing with their students, how that technology was being used, and strategies they use to achieve successful implementation. The teams confirmed earlier findings from the surveys and phone interviews and provided more thoughts on how to support successful implementation of technology with students with ASD. The following students and their school based teams were videotaped:

• Thomas – high functioning Aspberger’s student who uses an AlphaSmart for writing
  (click to view Thomas' videotape interview)
• Logan – a verbal “average” autistic student who uses Intellitools to develop academic and life skills concepts
  (click to view Logan's videotape interview)
• Steven – a minimally verbal high school student who uses Writing with Symbols to write journal entries and read social stories.
  (click to view Stephen's videotape interview)

The videotaped interviews provided an extensive amount of anecdotal observations which, along with the literature review, the survey results and the phone interviews, provided the basis for the Considerations document.

study analysis

This study used both quantitative and qualitative methods for collecting data on the implementation of technology with students with autism spectrum disorders. The quantitative data from the survey was well supported by the qualitative data from the phone interviews and videotape interviews. The combination of approaches created a much more complete picture of technology implementation with this student population.

While the survey data was supported by the interviews, there are some issues with the validity of the data obtained. The sample size was quite large but there was only a 49% return rate, and once incomplete and incorrectly completed surveys had been removed, only 44% of the surveys originally sent out could be used for analysis. This represents a somewhat low return rate and may generally include those teams who are naturally motivated to respond due to successful implementation. Teams that are experiencing difficulty implementing the technology with their students may not want to report that, even though the surveys were kept anonymous, for fear of losing the technology support from SET-BC. For that reason, the survey results may be skewed towards the "successful" end of implementation reporting.

In addition, the rating of whether or not technology is being successfully implemented was subjective - the teams chose from a range of descriptors. This is always challenging to quantify because one team's "somewhat successful" is another team's "extensively successful" depending on team expectations. This challenge is inherent in any of the survey questions that involved rating along a scale.

Despite these and other challenges to the survey's validity, the results, when presented to a group of SET-BC consultants, were not surprising. The survey results are, in other words, supported by what the consultants experience out in the field on a daily basis. For example, the low number of hours that the teams reported implementing the technology during the day (average of 1-2 hours per day) is typical of what the consultants observe when working with their teams. In addition, the almost complete lack of time reported by teams for planning and assessing the implementation of technology is certainly expressed repeatedly when the consultants attempt to support their implementation efforts.

The phone interviews helped add detail to the survey results. However, it could be argued that the sample was biased to begin with because the original sample pool was selected from only those surveys returned and analyzed that reported "extensively successful" technology implementation. In defense of this method, the main goal of the phone interviews was to gather information on strategies for successful implementation. Had teams who were not successfully implementing the technology been interviewed, the data would have more clearly outlined barriers to implementation. So, for that reason, the phone interview data was helpful.

Similarly, a specific goal as well as logistic considerations guided the choices for videotape interviews. The main goal of the videotape interviews was to create resources for teams considering or alreading implementing assistive technology with students with ASD. It was important to select exemplary teams who could act as "best practices" models. The three teams that were interviewed certainly fit that objective and their interviews provide rich examples of how to support a range of students with ASD.

The information gained from the three methods of data collection can be summarized as follows:

School based teams currently implementing technology with students with ASD

• The composition of the school based teams does not appear to be critical in whether or not implementation will be successful. Some large teams reported less success than smaller teams. However, it is obvious that one school based team member is pivotal in whether or not the implementation will be successful and that is the Teaching Assistant or Special Education Assistant that works directly with the technology and the student. If that individual is not technically competent or does not have a supportive attitude towards integrating the technology into the student's day, then it is very unlikely that the technology will be successfully implemented.
• Very few school based teams have any formal time built into their schedules for planning, directing and assessing the implementation of the technology. In fact, an alarming 88% reported 0 hours for planning and 85% reported 0 hours for assessing the technology. Almost all teams report that these activities occur "on the fly" in the halls and staff rooms as TA's connect with the Learning Assistant or Classroom teachers. The situation is not much better in terms of time to create support materials. For most of the assistive technologies, particularly those that rely on visual supports, the time to create materials is crucial to the success of the technology implementation. With no time built into their schedules, those teams that are reporting high levels of success are the ones that create the materials outside the school timetable. Several teams reported that they create materials at home.
• On average teams are reporting that they are at an intermediate level of technical ability - particularly for the team member who is primarily responsible for implementing the technology. Since the study focused primarily on those teams who were successful, this makes sense. One of the main indicators of successful implementation is comfort and facility with technology in general.
• The teams reported that they received training on the technology being implemented from a number of sources. There was no surprise that a high percentage (74%) reported that they received individual training from SET-BC. As this is part of the organization's service delivery model, and all of the teams represented students receiving service from SET-BC, one would expect that this would be the case. Surprisingly, however, very few teams (only 16%) reported receiving technology training from workshops delivered by others (like the school district). This is discouraging because it might indicate a lack of technology support in general from the school districts and an assumption that SET-BC will provide all the technology training needed.
• During the interview process, all teams indicated that the attitude towards technology integration in the school in general affected how successfully the assistive technology was implemented. The teams that were demonstrating successful implementation all reported that the school administration was very supportive of technology in general and that there was an "expectation" that students would use technology frequently and effectively. This general tone extended to the special education department.

Students with ASD currently implementing technology

• As expected, far more male students with ASD are implementing technology than females. In addition to the actual disorder ratio, this may be due to a higher number than average of higher functioning and Asperger's Syndrome students who were represented in the study. Most of the students at this point on the spectrum are males.
• There is a range of students with ASD currently implementing assistive technology from lower functioning non-verbal students to high functioning Aspberger's Syndrome students. Teams report implementing technology with students who are very cognitively delayed as well as cognitively gifted. There appears to be a wide gap between the two groups. The teams reported that their students were either significantly below their peers' ability level or above their peers' level. This result may indicate that teams perceive the two extreme ends of the spectrum as requiring specialized assistive technology, while students in the mid- or more average-range of abilities can be accommodated in the classroom with the technologies that are available for all students.
• The technology does not appear to be implemented immediately when the student enters school in Kindergarten but it begins to show up in students' programs generally in Grade 2. This could be due to several factors. The school based teams, faced with the many challenges that come with these types of students, focus on low technology visual supports, behaviour management and so on that make use of other tools. These early primary teams may be assuming that technology is something that should be implemented only when they have a clearer picture of what the student is and is not able to accomplish and a better sense of what the student's program will be. This is somewhat contrary to what we know about the value of early intervention with these students.

Technology currently being implemented with students with ASD

• The technologies currently being implemented can be loosely categorized as supporting two main program goals: communication and written output. Very few students in the study (only 6%) were implementing AAC devices for communication. However, when this is compared with the number of students that were reported as communicating at a far lower level than their peers, if at all, this does not seem to make sense. The high percentage of computers and laptops, coupled with assistive software that supports communication may explain this inconsistency. The teams may be choosing to implement a computer and sofware solution to meet the students' communication needs instead of an AAC device. In addition, implementation of AAC devices with this student population is challenging due to their unique idiosyncratic behaviours and this may be discouraging for teams.
• For students at the higher functioning end of the spectrum, teams are implementing technology to support written output almost exclusively. Laptops with or without assistive software is a common choice. Dedicated word processors are also implemented for students from intermediate grades through high school.
• Students who require visual supports are utilizing a variety of assistive software programs including Clicker 4, Writing with Symbols, Intellitalk, and Boardmaker. The choice appears to be less about the student's particular profile (since all present with a similar need for visually supported communication and concept development) and more about the school based team's comfort level or experience with a particular program and the technical demands of the program.
• In addition to supporting the two main goals of communication and written output, teams are using the technology to meet other educational goals such as behavioural management, social interaction and general motivation. A surprising number of them are also using the technology for keyboarding practice.
• The technologies are being implemented for only a small portion of the typical school day. Teams report an average of 1-2 hours of use per day with only 18% of the teams reporting implementing more than 2 hours per day. This would strongly indicate that technology is only one tool being used to meet the educational goals of the students. For higher functioning students who use technology as a tool for written output, this result is confusing. A significant number of teams reported that their student "uses it all the time" and several indicated that "he does all his writing on the computer [or AlphaSmart]". One must assume, then, the student's program involves many other activities other than writing.
• The technologies that are reported as being implemented the most successfully have the following characteristics:
  • ease of set up in general and on a daily basis
  • ease of use leading to independent use by student
  • technically reliable in a school environment
  • little or no requirement for support material preparation
• By contrast many of the teams that were reporting successful implementation of more challenging technologies also reported that the technology had a significant impact on the student's educational program.
• Almost all teams interviewed reported an initial period of frustration when implementing the technology - from both the student's perspective and in setting up the technology. The student may have resisted initially or new behaviours may have developed and there were often technical glitches that had to be solved. The teams that were successful were the ones that persevered through this initial phase and took a longer view of technology implementation.

conclusion

The study project was successful in meeting its main objectives:

• determine what technology is commonly implemented with students with ASD
• gather information on what implementation strategies school based teams use to effectively utilize the technology
• report the factors or conditions that support successful technology implementation with this student population
• summarize the project as a collection of online resources

The various components of the study worked together to create a fairly comprehensive description of which technologies are bing implemented and what strategies support successful implementation. The resources that have been developed as a result of the project - the literature review, this report, the considerations document, and the videotape presentations have created a good foundation on which to build future studies and resources.

The study answered some questions and formalized some of our understanding in this area, but it also generated suggestions for future study directions. One of the groups of students that seem to enjoy significant success with implementing technology are higher functioning students and those with Aspberger's Syndrome. An investigation into why this combination is so successful would provide insight into how and when technologies to support their writing should be introduced and in what manner. These students are often organizationally challenged as well and an exploration of organizational tools, like PDA's and graphic organizers would be appropriate. SET-BC does not, at this time, loan graphic organizing software as it is considered educational and not assistive technology. However, with this student population, it may be a critical tool to support their writing process.

Further investigation into why so few AAC devices were reported by the study group seems warranted. Is this low number indicative of teams' reluctance to implement AAC devices with students with ASD or have these devices been implemented but abandonned. This would add to the growing body of research in this specific area of technology implementation with this student population.

This study focused primarily on those teams who were successfully implementing technology. It would be very helpful, while more challenging, to approach it from the other direction and gather data from those teams who are not currently being successful. There is a growing body of research on abandonment of assistive technology, but a focus on barriers to or abandonment of technology with this group specifically would help steer teams in a more positive and successful implementation direction and would help SET-BC consultants be proactive when supporting teams working with students with ASD.

Finally, it would be helpful to follow a sample of the original students surveyed through the next few years to determine if their success with the technology continues. There is a significant issue with transition when students are using technology as they move from class to class and school to school. Factors which lead to successful transitions and ongoing implementation of the technology should be identified. Also, the type of technologies used by students as they mature through the school system should be documented. While each student is unique, particularly those with ASD, there may be a pattern or trend in what types of technology should be implemented at different levels or what a typical pattern of technology implementation might be depending on where the student is on the spectrum.

Much was learned by this author over the course of the study both in terms of the information gathered and the manner in which the information was obtained. Hopefully lessons learned will help future studies as we work to build our knowledge of autism spectrum disorders and the technology-based tools that can support their educational programs.